Back
1994 JLJ 479
S.K. Dubey and K.M. Pandey, JJ.
Suresh Kumar Sharma v. Municipal Council, Ambah and others
M.P. No. 1239 of 1992; Decided on 25.2.1994.
(2) Civil Services -- Transfer -- is an ordinary and normal incident of service -- transfer if made in similar post and cadre in the exigencies of public administration no grievance can be raised --transfer made by malafide and against the statutory provisions call be challenged. 1993 AIR SCW 1753 followed. [Para 7
(3) Municipalities Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S.94 (7) -- transfer of low-salaried municipal employees -- should not be made a routine.
In case of employees getting small emoluments the power seems to, be meant to be sparingly exercised under some compelling exigencies of a particular situation and not as a matter of routine. If it were to be liberally exercised, it will create tremendous problems and difficulties in the way of municipal employees getting small salaries. AIR 1980 SC 643 followed. [Para 8
(4) Municipalities Ad, 1961 (M.P.) -- S.94 (7) -- M.P. Municipal Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968 -- Rr. 2, 3, 15 proviso and 16 -- transfer of municipal employees out of district -- seniority maintained at municipal councel where appointment made --no state level gradation and seniority list shown -- transfer likely to affect seniority and promotion -- such transfer cannot be made.
In the background of the settled legal position, and when the petitioners assert that their seniority is maintained in the Municipal Council where they were appointed by the Municipal Council and when there is no State leval gradation and seniority list of the municipalities in the State of Madhya Pradesh, in such a situation on the transfers of the petitioners to different Municipal Councils, the seniority of the petitioners and right to be considered for promotion will be seriously affected; these facts cannot be lost sight of, as seniority and a right to be considered for promotion is a term of service. 1986 JLJ 115 distinguished. AIR 1994 SC 55, AIR 1985 SC 482 and 1990 (60) Indian Factories & Labour Reports 74 followed. [Para 16
¼1½ uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 94 ¼1½ ¼2½ rFkk ¼7½ & mi/kkjk ¼1½ rFkk ¼2½ esa mfYyf[kr ‘‘kCn ^^fdlh ifj"kn ds dksbZ Hkh vf/kdkjh vFkok lsod** & vFkZ & mlesa mfYyf[kr vf/kdkfj;ksa rFkk lsodksa rd lhfer ugha & ifj"kn }kjk fu;qDr vU; vf/kdkjh rFkk lsod Hkh mi/kkjk ¼7½ ds mís‘; ds fy, lfEefyr gSA , vkb vkj 1980 ,l lh 643 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 6
¼2½ flfoy lsok & LFkkukarj.k & lsok dh ,d lk/kkj.k rFkk lkekU; ?kVuk gS & yksd ç‘kklu dh vR;ko‘;drk esa LFkkukarj.k ;fn leku in rFkk laoxZ esa gks rc dksbZ f‘kdk;r ugha dh tk ldrh & vlnHkkoiwoZd rFkk dkuwuh mica/kksa ds fo#) LFkkukarfjr vk{ksfir fd;k tk ldrk gSA 1993 , vkb vkj ,l lh MCy;w 1753 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 7
¼3½ uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 94 ¼7½ & uxjikfydk ds vYi osruHkksxh deZpkfj;ksa dk LFkkukarj.k & uSR;d ugha cukuk pkfg,A
vYi miyfC/k;k¡ ikus okys deZpkfj;ksa ds ekeys esa ,slk çrhr gksrk gS fd ;g ‘kfDr fdlh fof‘k"V ifjfLFkfr dh fdlh ck/;dkjh vR;ko‘;drk esa de gh ç;ksx djus ds fy, vk‘kkf;r gS] uSR;d fo"k; ds :Ik esa ughaA ;fn ;g vf/kdrk ls ç;qDr dh tk,] rc ;g uxjikfydk ds vYi osru Hkksxh deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, Hk;adj leL;k,¡ rFkk dfBukb;k¡ [kM+h djsxhA , vkb vkj 1980 ,l lh 643 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 8
¼4½ uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 94¼7½ & e-ç- uxjikfydk deZpkjh ¼HkrhZ rFkk lsok dh ‘krs±½ fu;e] 1968&fu-2] 3] 15 ijarqd rFkk 16 & ftys ds ckgj uxjikfydk deZpkfj;ksa dk LFkkukarj.k & ftl uxjikfydk ifj"kn esa fu;qfDr dh xbZ ogk¡ T;s"Brk cuk, j[kh xbZ & jkT; Lrjh; inØe vkSj] T;s"Brk lwph n‘kkZbZ ugha xbZ & LFkkukarj.k }kjk T;s"Brk rFkk çksUufr çHkkfor gksuk laHkkO; & ,slk LFkkukarj.k ugha fd;k tk ldrkA
LFkkfir fof/kd fLFkfr dh Ik`"BHkwfe esa] rFkk tc ;kph çk[;ku djrs gSa fd ftl uxjikfydk ifj"kn esa] mudh fu;qfDr gqbZ Fkh] mlesa mudh T;s"Brk cukbZ xbZ gS rFkk tgk¡ e/; çns‘k jkT; dh uxjikfydkvksa dh jkT; Lrjh; inØe vkSj T;s"Brk lwph ugha gSa] ;kfp;ksa ds fofHkUu uxjikfydk ifj"knksa dks LFkkukarj.k dh ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa] ;kfp;ksa dh T;s"Brk rFkk çksUufr ds fy, fopkj fd, tkus dk vf/kdkj xaHkhj :Ik ls çHkkfor gksrk gS( bu rF;ksa dks vuns[kk ugha fd;k tk ldrk D;ksafd T;s"Brk rFkk çksUufr ds fy, fopkj fd, tkus dk vf/kdkj lsok dk fuca/ku gSA 1986 ts ,y ts 115 çHksfnrA , vkb vkj 1994 ,l lh 55] , vkb vkj 1985 ,l lh 482 rFkk 1990 ¼60½ bafM;u QSDVjht ,aM yscj fjiksVZl 74 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 16
S.K. Dubey, J.-- This order shall govern disposal or Misc. Petition No. 1240 of 1992 (Ram Kumar Tripathi v. Municipal Council, Alamaur and others); Misc. Petition No. 1242 of 1992 (Ramroop Sakhawar v. Municipal Council, Ambah and others); Misc. Petition No. 1243 or 1992 (Dataram Yadav v. Municipal Council, Mow and others); Misc. Petition No. 1244 or 1992 (Awadhesh Kumar Tripathi v. Municipal Council, Daboh and others) and Misc. Petition No. 1892 of 1992 (Umeshk Chandra Soni v. Director of Urban Administration, Bhopal and another) as well.
2. The six petitioners, by their separate petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, have challenged their transfer order passed by the Director of Urban Administration, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, on 25.7.1992. That is a common order and by that, as many as employees of various Municipal Councils in the State of Madhya Pradesh were transferred from different places to different places in the State. Details, relevant for disposal of the petitions in hand are as tabulated below:-
S.No M.P. No. Name of the Present Place where
Petitioner and place of transfer is ordered
the post held posting3
1. 1239/92 Suresh Kumar Ambah Bijroni
Sharma, Nakedar (District Morena) (District Shivpuri)
(Moharrir)
2. 1240/92 Ram Kumar Almapur Datia
Tripathi, Nakedar (District Bhind)
(Moharrir)
3. 1242/92 Ramroop Ambah Alampur
Sakhwar, Nakedar (District Morena) (District Bhind)
(Moharrir)
4. 1243/92 Dataram Yadav, Mow Ambah
Nakedar (Moharrir) (District Bhind) (District Morena)
5. 1244/92 Awadesh Kumar Daboh Maharajpur
Tripathi, Nakedar (District Bhind) (District Chhatarpur)
(Moharrir)
6. 1292/92 Umesh Chandra Mihona Vaikunthpur
Soni, L.D.C. (District Bhind) (District Surguja)
3. Petitioners (who are all Class IV employees except the petitioner in M.P. No.1292 of 1992), in their petitioners, contend that their posts are not transferable and do not fall within any of the categories mentioned in sections 94 (1) and 94 (2) of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, for short, the ‘Act'. Therefore, the order of the State Government, through its delegatee, the Director of Urban Administration, could not have passed the order of transfer. The petitioners also contend that they are not the employees of the State Municipal Service, nor were they appointed by the State Government, but were appointed by their respective Council concerned. Their seniority is maintained in the Municipal council and according to their seniority, the promotions are made to the next higher post in the said Municipal Council. As their graduation or seniority list is not maintained in relation to the whole of the State of Madhya Pradesh, their transfer to another Municipal Council would adversely affect their conditions of service. They are low-paid employees and their transfer order, without any reason, to adjust the favourites, is malafide, which will uproot the family of the petitioners.
4. Municipal Councils and the State, by their separate returns in each of the petitions, contested the petitions by contending therein that under section 94 (7) of the Act, the State Government is empowered to transfer any officer or servant of a Council, mentioned in sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 94 whose total emoluments exceed Rs.100/- to any other Concil. The State Government, vide Notification, published in the M.P. Government Gazette, dated 22.11.1977, delegated its powers exercisable by it under sections 94 (4) and 94 (7) of the Act to the Director of Urban Administration (Annexure R/1). Therefore, the order of transfer, passed by the Director, Urban Administration, is not without jurisdiction. The transfer of the employees is in exigencies of administration and in public interest. Consequent upon the order of transfer of the petitioners from one Municipal Council to another, the seniority of the petitioners and the resultant promotion on that basis is not affected in any manner. Therefore the orders
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
